God exists as an omniscient and omnipotent conscious being.

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Jarring
 


Hi
Sounds like a little misunderstanding. So much passion and fire

Hopefully self controlled




posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Jarring

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Jarring
 


Your decision to walk away and just forget everything I've written to you is your decision. I can't stop you. I'm just showing you how your basis in reasoning is flawed and how you might improve on your understanding and perhaps even find yourself in a better psychological position to appreciate the world.


forget? like i said before, I am no fool. And it is not my reasoning that is flawed. Just because you fail to understand me, does not prove I am wrong. YOU WOULD DO WELL NOT TO ATTACK ME.


I'm not attacking you. I'm demonstrating methods of establishing a more concrete basis for your position. Or a concrete basis for a more logically sound position. I'm apparently attacking you by suggesting that you test your god. You go so far out of the way to avoid putting your god on the spot. Why is that?



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 





I'm not attacking you. I'm demonstrating methods of establishing a more concrete basis for your position. Or a concrete basis for a more logically sound position. I'm apparently attacking you by suggesting that you test your god. You go so far out of the way to avoid putting your god on the spot. Why is that?


I believe it's called assuming the conclusion or begging the question. If the assumption is questioned, so is the conclusion and everything in between. What they are left with is nothing.



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Jarring
 



first of all, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Well sure but you're not stating it as a possibility, you're stating it's objective truth. When you do that it becomes a matter of 'burden of proof', and that burden is on the one making the claim of 'truthiness'.


it's probably best if you avoid trying to prove God exists. Mainly because most people come to understand God personally through a series of culminating events and thoughts.

Let's cut to the chase.

People are either coming from a position of faith or claiming direct knowledge. So are you a prophet? Are you in direct communion with the Creator of everything?

If that's not your claim, and it's faith based, and since you don't believe 'testing god' is paramount, how would you know anything about the nature of that god? In other words, how would you know it's the God of the Christian Bible and not Shiva or Osiris? See it's never really just an argument of gods existence from the religious; so much more is being put forth as truth. You can't say 'well there is just one god and that's the god I am referring to'. You can't do that, again, unless you're claiming to be in direct communion. There is many religious gods touted as being real, and many books in their name. These religions are not just swapping the name of god, they are fundamentally in conflict. Even if your belief in god's existence is accurate how are you then discerning the correct faith. You're not….because it's faith. One might be using the Mormon faith to ultimately pay homage to Brahmā. Faith is dangerous. Beliefs should always be gripped by reason. So yes I also think you should test your faith. Not just in god's existence, but also this notion we have texts transcribing its thoughts. The later even more so since it's that aspect that is impacting our World so much…

Please note I am not attacking you any more than you were attacking me with your comment about atheists.



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by GodIsRelative
 



I think I can simply explain what I believe so you will understand. I can imagine ten billion scenarios where a "God" like entity is born. In all of these plausible sounding scenarios, I assume that there is at least one that has happened. If "God" can be born, then it should stand to reason that "God" must be born at some place and time in the probably infinite time and space of the universe. And basically that's the cornerstone of my faith. If it can happen, then it must have happened somewhere at sometime and it only takes One.


So that's what I had said earlier. Infinity + Many Worlds = possibilities abound. Monkey's write Shakespeare.

Of course this would entail all the god's are real. If the infinite Universe gave birth to one, it would do so for the others. If this is the mechanics of reality and your faith, curious then, do you use Christian dogma? Is that part of your faith? Why? Not only do the others gods exist but they also offer salvation, liberation, afterlife, etc. Truly curious.
edit on 27-1-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Ah, now we're getting somewhere!

I believe in the God that created me from Clay and tempered me in Holy Fire. The other Gods were created by Him to serve His will with their purposes. Some were made to deceive mankind and tempt them to sin. Others were created to be representations of True Divine Will and guide mankind toward Heaven. The other Gods are real, yes, but there is One who is the Most High God. I believe that He made me and has a vested interest in my life. I believe that He cares about You, too. Sure, He can be a jealous God. But that doesn't mean He loves you any less if you do not worship Him. The fall of man comes to one word, and it is not sin. The word is doubt. Doubt is the sworn enemy of faith. But it is an enemy that can be overcome with nothing more than love. God loves when we love and he hates when we hate. All of this is in the bible. That's why I hold to some "Christian" teachings. I use that term hesitantly because there are many faces of Christian faith and I do not agree with most of them. I believe the Bible is the Divine, Inspired, and Authoritative word of God, but most people who claim to believe this, do not actually believe it. They believe what they're told by authorities in their life, not what the bible actually says. I encourage everyone to read the bible and form their own opinion about what the words mean.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 12:46 AM
link   

AfterInfinity

Jarring

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Jarring
 


Your decision to walk away and just forget everything I've written to you is your decision. I can't stop you. I'm just showing you how your basis in reasoning is flawed and how you might improve on your understanding and perhaps even find yourself in a better psychological position to appreciate the world.


forget? like i said before, I am no fool. And it is not my reasoning that is flawed. Just because you fail to understand me, does not prove I am wrong. YOU WOULD DO WELL NOT TO ATTACK ME.


I'm not attacking you. I'm demonstrating methods of establishing a more concrete basis for your position. Or a concrete basis for a more logically sound position. I'm apparently attacking you by suggesting that you test your god. You go so far out of the way to avoid putting your god on the spot. Why is that?


you were attacking me by assuming that I am ignorant to your reasoning, while insisting mine is flawed with no real understanding of it.


AfterInfinity
reply to post by Jarring
 


Your decision to walk away and just forget everything I've written to you is your decision. I can't stop you. I'm just showing you how your basis in reasoning is flawed and how you might improve on your understanding and perhaps even find yourself in a better psychological position to appreciate the world.


passive-aggressive or not, that is a direct attack on what you've perceived as my personal behavior and has nothing to do with the argument.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Jarring
 



first of all, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Well sure but you're not stating it as a possibility, you're stating it's objective truth. When you do that it becomes a matter of 'burden of proof', and that burden is on the one making the claim of 'truthiness'.


it's probably best if you avoid trying to prove God exists. Mainly because most people come to understand God personally through a series of culminating events and thoughts.

Let's cut to the chase.

People are either coming from a position of faith or claiming direct knowledge. So are you a prophet? Are you in direct communion with the Creator of everything?

If that's not your claim, and it's faith based, and since you don't believe 'testing god' is paramount, how would you know anything about the nature of that god? In other words, how would you know it's the God of the Christian Bible and not Shiva or Osiris? See it's never really just an argument of gods existence from the religious; so much more is being put forth as truth. You can't say 'well there is just one god and that's the god I am referring to'. You can't do that, again, unless you're claiming to be in direct communion. There is many religious gods touted as being real, and many books in their name. These religions are not just swapping the name of god, they are fundamentally in conflict. Even if your belief in god's existence is accurate how are you then discerning the correct faith. You're not….because it's faith. One might be using the Mormon faith to ultimately pay homage to Brahmā. Faith is dangerous. Beliefs should always be gripped by reason. So yes I also think you should test your faith. Not just in god's existence, but also this notion we have texts transcribing its thoughts. The later even more so since it's that aspect that is impacting our World so much…

Please note I am not attacking you any more than you were attacking me with your comment about atheists.


i didn't see this as an attack, in fact, you make a good point, and from my perspective, bolsters my own original point, saying it's probably best not to argue with, or try to prove the existence of God, although, the reasoning is slightly different, or rather found from a different, but similar angle.

I don't think non-believers get anywhere by holding a grudge against religion. Neither do the believers who defend their faith.

edit: i didn't state that it was objective truth. ie: one does not lead to the other.
Most if not all people who believe in God cannot simply prove He exists. If it were that easy, it would have been settled by now, and everyone would know God.
edit on 01/24/14 by Jarring because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Jarring
 


I'm attempting to analyze your stance and show you where I see flaws and you're busy screaming ''OPPRESSION!''

If being critiqued is not your cup of tea, then why exactly are you here in this thread? Are you defending the premise, arguing with it, playing referee? What's your position?



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Jarring
 



edit: i didn't state that it was objective truth. ie: one does not lead to the other. Most if not all people who believe in God cannot simply prove He exists. If it were that easy, it would have been settled by now, and everyone would know God.


If it cannot be proven, why should it be worshiped?



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 07:48 AM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Jarring
 


I'm attempting to analyze your stance and show you where I see flaws and you're busy screaming ''OPPRESSION!''

If being critiqued is not your cup of tea, then why exactly are you here in this thread? Are you defending the premise, arguing with it, playing referee? What's your position?


show me? you haven't shown me anything? you tell me to test God, I tell you my stance on it. And you just SAY it's flawed. Your reasoning for testing things does not show me MY flaw.

I told you I understand your point, but I can't understand where you get off on telling me I'm flawed. You have yet to take anything I've said with a positive attitude. You can't debate something you don't understand, that's why I have a hard time arguing with you. I don't have a problem with your reasoning, I have a problem with your problem with me. Just because your reasoning has you on a certain path, UNDERSTANDABLY, doesn't mean a different one is going to be flawed.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 07:55 AM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Jarring
 



edit: i didn't state that it was objective truth. ie: one does not lead to the other. Most if not all people who believe in God cannot simply prove He exists. If it were that easy, it would have been settled by now, and everyone would know God.


If it cannot be proven, why should it be worshiped?


Worship is an interesting subject. For me, true worship is something you do when you get a specific feeling. It's known as different things, in Christianity, it is the Holy Spirit. It can also be known as Kundalini, however, a lot of Christians disagree with the "I AM" beliefs among others. I simply call it chills up the spine. My grandmother said it is when someone walks over your grave. I worship only in this feeling, God or otherwise, be known in it.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Jarring
 


I've explained this to you. If you are unwilling to test your god, then you have nothing to go on but assumptions. You have no rational basis for your position. You have never tested him, and will never test him, which means you are just assigning value to your observations according to your own subjective understanding. It's a cycle of ignorance. I'm not attacking you, I'm explaining what I see here.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Jarring
 


When you worship, what exactly are you worshiping?



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 08:09 AM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Jarring
 


I've explained this to you. If you are unwilling to test your god, then you have nothing to go on but assumptions. You have no rational basis for your position. You have never tested him, and will never test him, which means you are just assigning value to your observations according to your own subjective understanding. It's a cycle of ignorance. I'm not attacking you, I'm explaining what I see here.


it's not all assumptions, it's a long progressive road of cumulative thoughts that DO make sense. This is just another problem people have when trying to argue with people about their beliefs. There's a lot that goes into it, and it's not that simple.

I didn't always believe in God, I was agnostic for a long time. I still hold somewhat true to agnosticism, mostly in His mystery, but my experiences and thoughts led me elsewhere, as well. I've witnessed Christ's values first hand, and understand many things in the Bible. Yet, it's not the only religion I hold relationship too. Not only that, but I have my own values that I came across on my own. For instance, not testing God, I learned that by experience. In fact, I came to Christ by happenstance, I wasn't even looking for him, I just sort of ran into him in my mind. I couldn't help but accept him.

Belief in God IS rational, it's just not simply observed. It can be difficult to explain when your reasoning is so vast and complex.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 08:17 AM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Jarring
 


When you worship, what exactly are you worshiping?


it depends greatly on why I'm getting the feeling. But typically, it's just the feeling itself that I'm "worshipping" in that I hold so much value in. Sometimes I worship the reason I'm getting it, it's just most of the time, the reason is the same as the reason for worship if that makes sense. Like, I worship for the sake of worship, because I like the feeling. I came to it by my own terms, and didn't acknowledge it as worship until later. It just made sense, and i realized the relationship between the word and the feeling. However, a lot of "worship" these days is known without the feeling, I am different from people who "worship" like this. I can't say they are wrong, only that I have a different point of view.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Jarring
 


I don't agree, but I accept and respect your explanation.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 



thanks, I understand your reasoning. And I'm not here to change your mind.

Just know that my reasoning is there, and it's possible to provide it in fragments, but the whole is much harder to write down for you so that you can understand. I don't think I can, I'm not that powerful.

If I was powerful enough to show you my God, I would do it every day of the week, I swear it. There is no greater feeling in the world than this worship I speak of, and I want everyone to be able to experience it as I.

I know you experience it, too. Even if you don't acknowledge it, there's something there, some reason you get that feeling. Whether the wind blows or just evacuating liquids in the body, there is an inkling feeling that makes your spine tingle and shoulders shake. Hairs on the back of your neck raise in anticipation, and you feel a climax or some sort of enlightenment or epiphany.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 08:39 AM
link   
like, i didn't just look up, or have been told that it is not for me to test God.
My complex understanding gives me reason to find it immoral.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Jarring
 


I don't find it immoral to question that which we find precious or virtuous. I think it helps to establish a more solid ground on which to understand ourselves and what we value.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join